The purpose that should be viewed askance, I’m assuming, is pure profit.
What if a commentator is on-point and talented, is not harmful to the cause, but is not very effective at nudging the discourse yet is getting rich off of it? Should they be viewed askance as well? I kind of think it’s a mixed bag because maybe the hypothetical commentator just hasn’t realized they need to change tactics. Or maybe they like their position of ineffective but rich talker. That’s their fruit.
Usually that type exists purely for entertainment, which is (unfortunately) a far more profitable endeavor than anything that actually accomplishes something.
Excellent insight. Thank you.
very insightful!
The purpose that should be viewed askance, I’m assuming, is pure profit.
What if a commentator is on-point and talented, is not harmful to the cause, but is not very effective at nudging the discourse yet is getting rich off of it? Should they be viewed askance as well? I kind of think it’s a mixed bag because maybe the hypothetical commentator just hasn’t realized they need to change tactics. Or maybe they like their position of ineffective but rich talker. That’s their fruit.
Usually that type exists purely for entertainment, which is (unfortunately) a far more profitable endeavor than anything that actually accomplishes something.